Film-Tech Cinema Systems
  Home     Products     Store     Forum     Warehouse     Contact Us    
Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE


  
my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Large Format Forum   » Poseidon: IMAX in Scope? (Page 2)

 
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Poseidon: IMAX in Scope?
Brian Michael Weidemann
Expert cat molester

Posts: 944
From: Costa Mesa, CA United States
Registered: Feb 2004

- posted 05-21-2006 06:23 PM      Profile for Brian Michael Weidemann   Author's Homepage   Email Brian Michael Weidemann   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Agreed! I'm sorry the theatre didn't make that more clear BEFORE you bought the ticket.

When we play 35mm films in our IMAX auditorium we use the same snipe. We are also not to use the word "IMAX" anywhere near the movie we're playing in there. It's referred to as "Giant Screen" by box office, customer service, etc. We only charge a $1 premium over normal ticket prices for Giant Screen.

I admit it's going to continue being confusing for people, whether or not the particular film they want to pay to see is 35mm or a 15/70 DMR. And advertisements and such aren't helping much, even if they're accurate. They're even wrong sometimes: I don't know if it's been corrected, but 777-FILM was clearly saying Poseidon at our theatre was in 3D, which it isn't, and I don't know WHERE they got the ticket prices they were ascribing to us!

 |  IP: Logged
Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001

- posted 05-22-2006 06:49 PM      Profile for Michael Coate   Email Michael Coate   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
And what are the other reasons [IMAX DMR was a bad idea]?
Simple: 5-perf 70mm would better and more cheaply accommodate what is being done.

quote: John Pytlak
But IMHO, the main reason some distributors have released feature films to IMAX theatres is that they value the infrastructure that IMAX provides as part of their "DMR" feature release program.
That's a valid point, John. However, IMHO, a viable infrastructure was in place during the '80s and into the early '90s until the industry destroyed it by falling in love with digital sound, stadium seating, and megaplex construction.

 |  IP: Logged
Mike Schindler
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1039
From: Oak Park, IL, USA
Registered: Jun 2002

- posted 05-23-2006 02:17 AM      Profile for Mike Schindler   Email Mike Schindler   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Michael Coate
Simple: 5-perf 70mm would better and more cheaply accommodate what is being done.
What exactly do you mean by this? I understand it would be cheaper, but what do you mean by better?

 |  IP: Logged
Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001

- posted 05-23-2006 03:10 PM      Profile for Michael Coate   Email Michael Coate   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Well, for one thing, I think it is retarded that the IMAX prints are being letterboxed.

I'm not suggesting filling the IMAX frame with the image of a widescreen movie; I'm suggesting they shouldn't be using IMAX at all! When I claim 5-perf can better accommodate what's being done, this is one of the things I'm referring to. Simply put, scope films better "fit" the frame of a 5-perf 70mm print and also end up filling the whole theatre screen in the process.

 |  IP: Logged
Adam Martin
I'm not even gonna point out the irony.

Posts: 3686
From: Dallas, TX
Registered: Nov 2000

- posted 05-23-2006 06:56 PM      Profile for Adam Martin   Author's Homepage   Email Adam Martin       Edit/Delete Post 
Would you stop complaining if the Imax locations masked the screen to fit the aspect ratio instead of leaving the unused portion blank?

 |  IP: Logged
Mike Schindler
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1039
From: Oak Park, IL, USA
Registered: Jun 2002

- posted 05-24-2006 10:41 AM      Profile for Mike Schindler   Email Mike Schindler   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Michael Coate
I'm not suggesting filling the IMAX frame with the image of a widescreen movie; I'm suggesting they shouldn't be using IMAX at all! When I claim 5-perf can better accommodate what's being done, this is one of the things I'm referring to. Simply put, scope films better "fit" the frame of a 5-perf 70mm print and also end up filling the whole theatre screen in the process.
Isn't this kind of like saying, "Citizen Kane will be better on DVD than Blu-ray because the image will utilize every pixel on DVD, but need to be pillarboxed on Blu-ray"? Even so, you're still getting more resolution on Blu-ray. The same's true with Imax vs. 5-perf 70mm.

 |  IP: Logged
Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001

- posted 05-24-2006 08:32 PM      Profile for Michael Coate   Email Michael Coate   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Mike Schindler
Isn't this kind of like saying, "Citizen Kane will be better on DVD than Blu-ray because the image will utilize every pixel on DVD, but need to be pillarboxed on Blu-ray"?
Uh, no. You're arguing resolution; I'm arguing shape.

Like I stated earlier, 5-perf 70 better accommodates widescreen movies, and the industry once had a viable model in place. (And if I have to state it one more time, I'm going to yell it in caps.)

And, no, I don't think the final IMAX DMR print necessarily has more resolution (despite the possibility for such) because of the digital processing that's being used. As an example, I thought "V For Vendetta" looked like crap (except for the close-ups). Jeez, I'm starting to sound like Myers. [Smile]

 |  IP: Logged
Jeremy Jorgenson
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1002
From: Chicago, IL, USA
Registered: Feb 2005

- posted 05-25-2006 11:47 PM      Profile for Jeremy Jorgenson   Author's Homepage   Email Jeremy Jorgenson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Michael Coate
the industry once had a viable model in place. (And if I have to state it one more time, I'm going to yell it in caps.)
He wasn't contending this point that you made.

 |  IP: Logged
Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001

- posted 05-26-2006 12:41 AM      Profile for Michael Coate   Email Michael Coate   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
And what's your point?

 |  IP: Logged
Adam Martin
I'm not even gonna point out the irony.

Posts: 3686
From: Dallas, TX
Registered: Nov 2000

- posted 05-26-2006 01:23 AM      Profile for Adam Martin   Author's Homepage   Email Adam Martin       Edit/Delete Post 
At the risk of taking this thread off-topic (too late!):

quote: Michael Coate
Simply put, scope films better "fit" the frame of a 5-perf 70mm print and also end up filling the whole theatre screen in the process.
quote: Adam Martin
Would you stop complaining if the Imax locations masked the screen to fit the aspect ratio instead of leaving the unused portion blank?
You skipped right over the question that I asked.

 |  IP: Logged
Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001

- posted 05-26-2006 02:16 AM      Profile for Michael Coate   Email Michael Coate   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
So what. Considering I haven't been complaining, I thought you asked a knuckle-headed question that didn't deserve a reply. [Razz]

 |  IP: Logged
Paul Linfesty
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1383
From: Bakersfield, CA, USA
Registered: Nov 1999

- posted 05-26-2006 08:33 AM      Profile for Paul Linfesty   Email Paul Linfesty   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Michael Coate
And, no, I don't think the final IMAX DMR print necessarily has more resolution (despite the possibility for such)
Possibly not. But there would be less grain from the positive IMAX print and that would help in the same way that a 35mm film blown up to 5 perf 70mm would.

quote: Michael Coate
Simply put, scope films better "fit" the frame of a 5-perf 70mm print and also end up filling the whole theatre screen in the process.
So are you against 1.85 films being blown up to 5 perf 70mm while retaining their OAR? (I know you would be against cropping to fill the whole frame).

 |  IP: Logged
Jeremy Jorgenson
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1002
From: Chicago, IL, USA
Registered: Feb 2005

- posted 05-26-2006 03:40 PM      Profile for Jeremy Jorgenson   Author's Homepage   Email Jeremy Jorgenson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Michael Coate
And what's your point?
Well, you said you were about to the point of yelling in caps ... I was noting that what you were about at the point of yelling about was not in contention.

 |  IP: Logged
Adam Martin
I'm not even gonna point out the irony.

Posts: 3686
From: Dallas, TX
Registered: Nov 2000

- posted 05-26-2006 04:28 PM      Profile for Adam Martin   Author's Homepage   Email Adam Martin       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Michael Coate
I thought you asked a knuckle-headed question that didn't deserve a reply.
I'm asking the question because I want to know the answer.

So I'll ask it a third time: If Imax theaters masked the screens to the aspect ratio of the printed image area, would you still think that it is an inappropriate use of the larger film format because it "doesn't fit"?

 |  IP: Logged
Caleb Johnstone-Cowan
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 593
From: London, UK
Registered: Mar 2006

- posted 05-27-2006 08:47 PM      Profile for Caleb Johnstone-Cowan   Email Caleb Johnstone-Cowan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Don't know how on-off topic this is but is the Poseidon IMAX Experience headed to the UK, specifically London?

Could you really have masking for an IMAX screen?

 |  IP: Logged


All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
- Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.

© 1999-2020 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.